yes, You can believe that if its suits you.this is my 5dmk2 and my d800, exposed in the same way to get the high lights in the sky intactthen the darker parts are lifted and adjusted the same. The results from the Canon is visible more pattern noise , banding, lower signal , less color information.

I find that very hard to believe, can you post the untouched RAW files please?

It is a contrived scenario. The D800 image has clearly been exposed better. The 5D II image has much deeper blacks, indicating it was underexposed relative to the D800, thus putting at a relative disadvantage (above and beyond any actual disadvantage it may actually have). The whole point of those shots is to purposely make the majority of the image "black", requiring multiple stops of shadow recovery. The bulk of the pixel area of Mikael's 5D bashing images are lifted 4, 5, 6 stops, which is a ludicrous comparison in any but the most extreme of the extreme circumstances. I think that is a bit of a DPReview Nikonian forums "fad"...they do that a lot over there, just for sh*ts and giggles.

I know, it was just an opening gambit. I'd still like to see the RAW files with full intact EXIF.

Just like Aglet and his "horrific banding" with the 5D MkII at base iso exposures, so bad and so regular he sold the camera, but he can't post a file without "asking the families permission" and "I have been busy".

Oh yes...the obfuscation is so thick you could drown in it. They don't want anyone to know they additionally underexposed the 5D II by another couple of stops to put it in particularly bad light relative to the Exmor cameras. Is that not the fundamental crux of bad science? Hide your data?

yes, You can believe that if its suits you.this is my 5dmk2 and my d800, exposed in the same way to get the high lights in the sky intactthen the darker parts are lifted and adjusted the same. The results from the Canon is visible more pattern noise , banding, lower signal , less color information.

I find that very hard to believe, can you post the untouched RAW files please?

It is a contrived scenario. The D800 image has clearly been exposed better. The 5D II image has much deeper blacks, indicating it was underexposed relative to the D800, thus putting at a relative disadvantage (above and beyond any actual disadvantage it may actually have). The whole point of those shots is to purposely make the majority of the image "black", requiring multiple stops of shadow recovery. The bulk of the pixel area of Mikael's 5D bashing images are lifted 4, 5, 6 stops, which is a ludicrous comparison in any but the most extreme of the extreme circumstances. I think that is a bit of a DPReview Nikonian forums "fad"...they do that a lot over there, just for sh*ts and giggles.

Sorry! they have the exact same exposure, do you now what that means?

It means you've proclaimed something. That's all. You have yet to produce the original RAW files, WITH EXIF data, as many people have asked, so we can all verify that. Since none of you DPR guys have ever offered the original RAW files, it is hard to simply take you at your word, especially given that it is so apparent you have something against Canon (almost on a personal level).

No one here will ever take you seriously until you produce the untouched RAW files with metadata for these contrived examples. As has been mentioned before, when exposed properly on any camera, those photos could have been taken without any evidence of visible noise, even with a couple stops of shadow pushing if it was really, really necessary.

This is so interesting, Jrista and Neuro, explain please , I have done at least 50 different comparison and used the same exposure time and f-stop . WHY should it not be an adequate test?Do you two mean that a Canons shall be richer exposed than other cameras regarding time or F-stop

Because you refuse to produce your source data. You only provide screenshots of two processed images in an image editor, and expect everyone to simply take your word on the "facts" as you proclaim them. Sorry, but that isn't good enough. Produce the RAWs with unmodified EXIF, or we'll continue to ridicule your little contrived examples of "evidence" of Canon's supposed raging inferiority.

You can ask David Hull, I have lent my raw files to many photographers at Dpreview (as to the famous Hans Kruse ), in the end all have agreed with me regarding the benefits of low read out noise. You can defend Canon in absurdum, there are two different sensors and one is with a modern read out analog to digital chain, and one from 2004 with 14 times higher read out noise at base iso

Telling us you sent your RAW files to select individuals who already agree with you is just as absurd. It also does not extricate you from your current predicament. You are making bold claims that purposely put Canon sensors in atrociously horrible light, when everyone who has used a Canon camera knows intuitively that they could take the same photos without the noise problems. We have all asked you to PROVE your claims, or at least make it clear that you are purposely creating a contrived scenario for the sole purpose of exposing nature of read noise in the deep shadows of a Canon image. You have repeatedly refused to do so, as have other "brilliant minds" from DPR. Sorry bub...your hiding something, every one knows that, and yet you just keep digging yourself a deeper hole.

To be honest, I'm fine and dandy with you perpetually digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole...it just proves my case for me. So please, happily keep doing what your doing.

Oh yes...the obfuscation is so thick you could drown in it. They don't want anyone to know they additionally underexposed the 5D II by another couple of stops to put it in particularly bad light relative to the Exmor cameras. Is that not the fundamental crux of bad science? Hide your data?

Riiiiiight.There you go again.Everyone from sensor sites to Fred Miranda, to DxO, to Michael, to myself, to numerous posters on DPR, etc. are all in league in a conspiracy against Canon! Everyone get out your tinfoil hats, quick!

As always, if you want to 'prove' your point, it helps to design your 'test' with a bias toward your desired outcome

Fair enough, nobody has ever argued that Nikon doesn't lack some lenses or doesn't have some negatives, many of us has said so ourselves too, repeatedly, the problem is that anytime someone mentions Canon is worse at that something the Canon fanboys go nuts and try to hide it.

You can ask David Hull, I have lent my raw files to many photographers at Dpreview (as to the famous Hans Kruse ), in the end all have agreed with me regarding the benefits of low read out noise. You can defend Canon in absurdum, there are two different sensors and one is with a modern read out analog to digital chain, and one from 2004 with 14 times higher read out noise at base iso

To be honest, I'm fine and dandy with you perpetually digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole...it just proves my case for me. So please, happily keep doing what your doing.

Yeah sure, you'd come up with some other excuse then that he had manipulated his RAW files or something and how can you trust it unless he flies to the US and retakes the shots in front of you and there are three witnesses to track the file from his camera into your computer. You asked for my detailed DR procedure and went crazy that I was supposedly hiding it and then I quickly revealed it and.... it made no difference, you just made up 30 other excuses, until like two months later, you vaguely admitted it all before going back to more excuses.

Nikon has plenty of problems too but there is no need to try to hide the DR thing, if it never affects you fine, whatever, but every time it comes up do you need to extend every thread to thirty pages just to try to cover it up? You have even admitted yourself, in the past, that there is a difference.

Oh yes...the obfuscation is so thick you could drown in it. They don't want anyone to know they additionally underexposed the 5D II by another couple of stops to put it in particularly bad light relative to the Exmor cameras. Is that not the fundamental crux of bad science? Hide your data?

Riiiiiight.There you go again.Everyone from sensor sites to Fred Miranda, to DxO, to Michael, to myself, to numerous posters on DPR, etc. are all in league in a conspiracy against Canon! Everyone get out your tinfoil hats, quick!

I was not talking about Fred Miranda, DXO, or yourself. I was specifically talking about Mikael, and no one else and nothing more. He has regurgitated the same set of contrived comparison examples over and over all over the net, however only a few very select individuals have ever actually seen the original RAW images. Sorry, but yes...I stand by my statement about the obfuscation there being so thick you could drown in it, in explicit regard to Mikael's obfuscatory approach to proving his claims at the request of MANY members here.

I have also never said anything derogatory about Fred Miranda. I have great respect for the man, as I do many other individuals and organizations. I have no qualms about voicing my skepticism about DXO's results, approach, or the validity and usefulness of their tests and results. I am not alone in those sentiments, either. As for DPR, that place is a cesspool of religious brand wars, and to be frank, it is rather irksome that an increasing number of those tards have migrated here to push buttons and generally wreak havoc on what is otherwise supposed to be some fun and entertaining speculation about future Canon products. Mikael specifically, as he makes a lot of claims but never actually backs them up with verifiable fact.

I respect you, LTRL, for at least providing concrete evidence of your claims, as you did with the 5D III noise tests. I was very hopeful that Canon would have fixed something, and ultimately it was proven they did not. I don't believe the claims made about Canon sensors are as dire and severe as they are frequently made out to be, even by such as yourself, and I argue hard against such claims, even against you. But the same point stands. We are here to speculate about future Canon products and technology. I believe there IS hope for Canon, and I believe Canon DOES have some vastly superior (relative to itself) CMOS technology up its sleve that will begin to trickle into the market soon. At the very least, I HOPE that technology will trickle into the market soon, and that is kind of the point of CR, or at least part of the point. Is our right to be hopeful going to be banned (right along with all the other rights that have been or are being banned these days)? Are you, Mikael, and the rest of the DPR crew going to continue to stomp all over and purposely dash the hopes of Canon fans, just for sh*ts and giggles? (Because there does not seem to be any other viable reason for you guys to repeatedly bring out the same old diatribe again and again whenever anyone in these forums gets excited or hopeful about Canon's future or existing technology...)

Nikon has plenty of problems too but there is no need to try to hide the DR thing, if it never affects you fine, whatever, but every time it comes up do you need to extend every thread to thirty pages just to try to cover it up? You have even admitted yourself, in the past, that there is a difference.

Sure, I recognize that there is a difference. I've never denied that, not once multiple analyses of both the D800 and 5D III were out. But again, as I've said for over a year at this point...you guys are missing my point. The key point is that in the vast majority of situations, the added DR doesn't matter. It is one factor out of dozens that affect IQ. I've argued that I do not believe DXO's approach to describing DR with their "Print DR" statistic is entirely valid, or that it has any real meaningful bearing on what a camera can do at the hardware level. I'll stand by those claims until the end of time, but when it comes to the DPR crew here...you guys perpetually miss the point. I am not, and have not since the actual release of the 5D III, ever claimed that Canon's sensors have as much DR as the D800. You guys seem to think I am saying that, and why you can't let go of that nitpicky point is beyond me. My point is the difference is meaningless in the majority of cases, and when it does matter, it is only one factor out of many that affects IQ. In the cases where low ISO DR is critical, which is primarily landscape photography, hell yes! The D800 trounces the 5D III, walks all over pretty much every other camera on earth except a couple other Nikon cameras. But again...that's not my point. Not my current point. Wasn't the majority of my past points. Stop missing the point.

And last, but not least, one final point. You complain that I draw threads on pages and pages arguing with you guys. You seem to think I am solely at "fault" for those things. One, don't forget, you and the rest of the DPR crew are always involved in those threads as well. Two, you guys are usually the ones who instigate the debate in the first place. Three, you repeatedly instigate the same debate over and over about a single point...dynamic range...even when the prior discussion in the thread has NOTHING to do with DR, or even sensors. If you guys want to debate, I'm happy to debate. If multi-page long debates tick you off...stop starting them, or don't get involved and don't read them.

Sorry guys, I have not been around for a couple of days so now I see the "D7000 replacement in April..." topic and open, read last two pages without seeing anything about the D7000 or its replacement. Going to read from the beginning to see how the topic developed but just had to suggest this: Perhaps we should have a "Canon sensors vs those in Nikons" board under gear talk? Or perhaps "Canon bashing" (I for one would go there every now and then for sure )?

Sorry guys, I have not been around for a couple of days so now I see the "D7000 replacement in April..." topic and open, read last two pages without seeing anything about the D7000 or its replacement. Going to read from the beginning to see how the topic developed...

Here's how:

Q: What was the weather like in Stockholm last week?

A: Sunny, and when I underexposed by 4 stops to capture the detail of the sun shining down on the Storkyrkan then pulled up the shadows by 4 stops to see the cobblestone detail of the Slottsbacken, the Canon 5DIII failed miserably with banding and noise, but fortunately I had my D800 with me - and look at this perfect shot!

Sorry guys, I have not been around for a couple of days so now I see the "D7000 replacement in April..." topic and open, read last two pages without seeing anything about the D7000 or its replacement. Going to read from the beginning to see how the topic developed...

Here's how:

Q: What was the weather like in Stockholm last week?

A: Sunny, and when I underexposed by 4 stops to capture the detail of the sun shining down on the Storkyrkan then pulled up the shadows by 4 stops to see the cobblestone detail of the Slottsbacken, the Canon 5DIII failed miserably with banding and noise, but fortunately I had my D800 with me - and look at this perfect shot!

LOL!

I recall you had a spilled coffee issue when reading the "ask something no one knows nor ever thought of nor wondered and wait, Neuro will give you the answer" part (sorry for the misquote but something of that kind), if you recall that post a year ago... I was wondering if you have any solution to it as I seem to have spilled some on the carpet due to your post...

Sorry guys, I have not been around for a couple of days so now I see the "D7000 replacement in April..." topic and open, read last two pages without seeing anything about the D7000 or its replacement. Going to read from the beginning to see how the topic developed...

Here's how:

Q: What was the weather like in Stockholm last week?

A: Sunny, and when I underexposed by 4 stops to capture the detail of the sun shining down on the Storkyrkan then pulled up the shadows by 4 stops to see the cobblestone detail of the Slottsbacken, the Canon 5DIII failed miserably with banding and noise, but fortunately I had my D800 with me - and look at this perfect shot!

well with a sony sensor you can under expose so you cover high lights far above middle grey which are usually 4 stops and both Storkyrkans golden highlights are intact reproduced in the sun and open up in the shadows of the big church to se details= that the benfits of a large DR 14 stops and not 11 with banding and patter noise

sorry, a prof. photographers who under/over expose for more than 2 stops will not going to be earn my respect. i do not allow myself to make big mistake in predict exposures; therefore, i have made a tool and developed my own way of seeing light.

under/over exposure over two stops? sorry to say that he/she is an un-prof. photographer. are you one of them? if someone wants more DR, then go for HDR with CS6 since it is available 32 bits now...